Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
Mrs. Ramjyoti Devi vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 20 December, 2022 cites

Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithlesh Kumar ... vs The State Of Bihar on 11 October, 2022

12. This Court also finds that in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court, in the case of Mithlesh Kumar Singh (supra) wherein, the petitioner was a constable, who had superannuated from the district of Hazaribagh as back as on 13.08.1989, it has been ultimately held in para 9 that the court was satisfied from the plain reading of the statutory provision that the liability with regard to the father of the said writ petitioner, having retired from the State of Bihar before the appointed day, would rest with the State of Bihar.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 29 - A K Singh - Full Document

Akhileshwar Prasad And Ors. vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board And ... on 31 March, 2006

And, In "Akhileshwar Prasad v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board" (supra) a Division Bench of this Court having considered the guidelines contained in letter dated 6.1.2004 and the agreement dated 27.12.2003 between the J.S.E.B. and B.S.E.B made an order for payment of pensionary dues to the employees, retired/retiring from the areas, now falling under their jurisdiction, subject to final accounting/adjustment of their liabilities and also subject to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suit No. 01 of 2005.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 10 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2016

In view of the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of "Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar and others", (supra) read with the aforesaid judgement of Surendra Prasad Thakur (supra), the liability to pay the pensionary and other retiral benefits to an employee retiring prior to 15.11.2000 would be of the State of Bihar. Even in view of the counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar, the petitioner is a pensioner of the State of Bihar and is guided by the various circulars or guidelines of the State of Bihar. Therefore, reliance of the petitioner on Annexure - 8 to the rejoinder, to claim any arrears of pension on the basis of decision taken by the State of Jharkhand, is misplaced and misconceived and no relief, as prayed for by the writ petitioner, can be granted by referring to Annexure - 8 issued by the State of Jharkhand.
Patna High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 29 - C S Singh - Full Document

Damodar Kumar Ojha vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 22 March, 2003

In "Damodar Kumar Ojha v. State of Jharkhand and others", reported in 2006 (2) JLJR 516 (2004 AIR Jhar HCR 1752) the retiral benefits of the pensioner who was working as forester in the State Trading Division Chatra South, Chatra, erstwhile Bihar State, was directed to be paid. The Court further observed, "but still the question is who shall pay the amount to concerned treasury in cases not covered by Clause 2 of the VIIIth Schedule, ordinarily it is the State of Bihar.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - V Prasad - Full Document

Surendra Prasad Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 19 February, 2016

In view of the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of "Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar and others", (supra) read with the aforesaid judgement of Surendra Prasad Thakur (supra), the liability to pay the pensionary and other retiral benefits to an employee retiring prior to 15.11.2000 would be of the State of Bihar. Even in view of the counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar, the petitioner is a pensioner of the State of Bihar and is guided by the various circulars or guidelines of the State of Bihar. Therefore, reliance of the petitioner on Annexure - 8 to the rejoinder, to claim any arrears of pension on the basis of decision taken by the State of Jharkhand, is misplaced and misconceived and no relief, as prayed for by the writ petitioner, can be granted by referring to Annexure - 8 issued by the State of Jharkhand.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - V Singh - Full Document

Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Molan Singh vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 15 December, 2005

Mr. Rajesh Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has relied on a decision of Patna High Court in "Mithilesh Kumar Singh alias Molan Singh v. The State of Bihar and others", reported in 2006 (1) PLJR 420, whereunder also the Court has held that, in view of the statutory provision under the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, the liability to pay the pensionary and other retiral benefits to an employee retiring prior to 15.11.2000 would be of the State of Bihar."
Patna High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - N Sinha - Full Document
1